US Navy DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class


Scratch

Captain
The future Zumwalt DDGs might get to the shore attack/ naval fire support role in amphibious landings quiet a bit.
With 14,500t displacement, that's far more than anybody would currently devote to a destroyer. It's even more than most cruisers have.
The DDG-1000 will have 80 PVLS tubes, those Mk 57 tubes will be bigger than the Mk 41 to hold bigger missiles or more of a smaller type. The Zumwalts are devoted to the littoral warfare/ landing support role in the first place, meaning they will carry mostly Tomahawks perhaps around the 61(?) the Spurance are/were carrying.
Plus, the Zumwalts will have two 5in/62 guns with extended range (up to 100miles) and LRLAP as naval fire support for landing troops.
A very important thing on them is the stealth capabilty (RCS, IR, niose, magnetics) wich will allow them to reach littoral waters unnoticed and mount suprise attacks far inland. Supported by a new dual-band radar and tactical-tomahawks / SM-2IV.
Now the problem with these is of course the cost of over US$ 3B per ship for construction alone. The navy might only get two to eight vessels. So they might get streched rather fast.
Once in place they seem likely to me to operate with the new LCS in costal operations, complementing each other very well. And since the Zumwalt will only come in small numbers, I can't really imagine them being part of a CSG. The strike roles are done by the aircraft, and the Burkes are a bit more dedicated to AAW. The AD for SAG comprising of Zumwalts and LCS could then come from the possible future CG(X), if the DDG-1000 is succesfull. The CG(X) will actually be smaller than the -1000s, if I'm correct. They will feature even better stealth characteristics and be dedicated to AAW/TBMD. Though the Zumwalt will have the growth capacity to fullfill CG-21 missions once needed.
Vessels other than CVs, LHAs, are becoming bigger again. It's still a gap to battleships, -cruisers. But there seems to be a place for them, at least in the biggest navy on earth.
But I am not so sure if the new capabilities are worth the price. Mostly because less than ten vessels is not much. The burkes will stay in service for still some time, but when you start to replace them with only a dozen modern AAW destroyers too, there will be a big gap in US naval habours.

For comparision. The latest burkes have 96 cells, and the Ticos 122 (Mk 41).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The US Navy is in the process of building its first DDG 1000 Zumwalt class destroyer. It is a completely new design and is based on 10 major naval technology/process advancements that the US Navy believes will allow such a vessel to dominate naval surface warfare (as well as anti-air and anti-submarine warfare) for the next fifty years.

But, due to costs, the US Navy intends to build only three of them, and use them as a bridge to these new technologies for the next class of surface combatants, possible the new CGX cruiser or some other.

Here's the ten points:


1) The Advanced Gun System (ADG) - To achieve an increased rate of fire and improved lethality while reducing operational crew headcount, the Zumwalt-class destroyer will employ the Advanced Gun System (AGS). A battery of two 155mm AGSs, firing-rocket assisted Long-Range Land Attack Projectiles (LRLAP) will provide precision strikes and volume fire at a range of up to 83 nautical miles. This system is equivalent to twelve 155mm howitzers and will see a three fold improvement in naval surface fire coverage when compared to current capabilities


2) Dual Band Radar (DBR) - The Zumwalt DBR integrates S-band and X-band radar capabilities in a single system. It delivers true multi function performance, simultaneously supporting self-defense/anti-air warfare, situational awareness, land attack, naval gunfire support, surface search, navigation and air traffic control.


3) Autonomic Fire Suppression System (AFSS) - An advanced automated damage-control system combines sensors, cameras and automated firefighting capabilities to ensure that the Zumwalt has the fastest possible response time to life- and ship-threatening events. This system improves survivability in both peacetime and wartime while reducing the number of crewmembers needed for damage control.


4) Integrated Composite Deckhouse and Apertures (IDHA) - Constructed of rugged, lightweight composites, the angular deckhouse increases stealth by minimizing radar reflectance. The surfaces of the Zumwalt’s deckhouse incorporate all radar apertures and communication antennas, eliminating high-profile masts and rotating antennas.


5) Integrated Power System (IPS) - The Zumwalt Destroyer is often called an all-electric ship. The efficient, quiet and economical design of the IPS generates all the energy needed for propulsion, electronics, combat, environmental and other ship systems.


6) Integrated Undersea Warfare (IUSW) - The IUSW incorporates two types of sonar arrays in one automated system. The high frequency sonar provides in-stride mine avoidance capabilities, while the medium frequency sonar optimizes anti-submarine and torpedo defense operations. The use of sophisticated target algorithms better enables the Zumwalt Destroyer to engage enemy submarines and, at the same time, minimize crew headcount requirements.The sonar that will be required to achieve this goal includes the following:
Sonar - A dual-band sonar controlled by a highly automated computer system will be used to detect mines and submarines. The arrangemtn will be optimized for littoral Anti-submarine warfare and will include:.

- A hull-mounted mid-frequency sonar (AN/SQS-60)
- A hull-mounted high-frequency sonar (AN/SQS-61)
- A multi-function towed array sonar and handling system (AN/SQR-20)


7) MK57 Vertical Launch System (VLS) - The advanced MK57 Vertical Launching System can accommodate both existing and future missiles for land attack, anti-ship, anti-submarine and anti-air warfare. Its modular electronic architecture allows the Zumwalt Destroyer faster, more economical migration to new missile systems by minimizing the need to requalify the launcher for every new missile


8) Peripheral Vertical Launch System (PVLS) - A system of armored compartments located around the periphery of the Zumwalt. Each PVLS compartment contains and protects one MK57 Vertical Launching System. This design makes launchers and missiles resistant to battle damage while safely isolating them from crew and equipment spaces


9) Total Ship Computing Environment (TSCE) - The TSCE is the first large-scale implementation of the U.S. Navy’s Open Architecture strategy. Designed to bind all Zumwalt systems together, the TSCE creates a shipboard enterprise network allowing seamless integration of all on-board systems. It also gives the Navy increased ability to use standardized software and commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware on a fleet-wide basis.


10) Wave Piercing Tumblehome Hull - The tumblehome (inward sloping) hull minimizes the Zumwalt-class destroyer’s radar cross section for enhanced stealth and survivability. Driven by a quiet and efficient all-electric propulsion system, the hull design optimizes speed, maneuverability and stability while minimizing engine noise and infrared signatures.

Artists Renderings:









 
Last edited:

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Nice photos Jeff! I thought the USN was building eight of these? When was the cutback? I must have missed that!
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Nice photos Jeff! I thought the USN was building eight of these? When was the cutback? I must have missed that!
Starting in 2008 and then in the 2010 budget. Actually, they were going to go down to just two, and had to get the third one back.

From my page:

USN 21st Century - DDG 1000 said:
On 31 July 2008, U.S. Navy acquisition officials informed Congress that the service needed to purchase more Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, and no longer saw the need for multiple, next-generation DDG-1000 class. AT that time, it was suggested that only the two destroyers would be built. The Navy said the world threat picture had changed such that it made more sense to build at least eight more Burkes, rather than DDG-1000s. Many Congressional members were incredulous that the Navy could have conducted such a sweeping re-evaluation of the world threat picture in just a few weeks, after spending some 13 years and $10 billion on the surface ship program known as DD-21, then DD(X) and finally, DDG-1000. Subsequently chief of naval operations Gary Roughead cited the need to provide area air defense and specific new threats such as ballistic missiles and the possession of anti-ship missiles by groups such as Hezbollah.

On 19 August, 2008 Secretary Winter was reported as saying that a third Zumwalt would be built at Bath Iron Works, citing concerns about maintaining shipbuilding capacity. House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha said on 23 September 2008 that he had agreed to partial funding of the third DDG-1000 in the 2009 Defense authorization bill.

On 6 April 2009, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that DoD's proposed 2010 budget will end the DDG-1000 program at a maximum of three ships. Also in April, the Pentagon awarded a fixed-price contract with General Dynamics to build the three destroyers, replacing a cost-plus-fee contract that had been awarded to Northrop Grumman. All three destroyers will be built in Maine at Bath Iron works though sub-assemly work will occur at various other locations. The first and second destroyers are expected to cost around $3.5 billion and the third somewhat less than that.
 

pugachev_diver

Banned Idiot
I really wondered and dying to know, how much of the overall price of this ship would be actually pure profit for the company.
Are all weapon orders nonprofitable unless sold in large numbers? I heard many companies even tip in money if big projects are cancelled when it's very near completion, such as the Commanche.
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
I really wondered and dying to know, how much of the overall price of this ship would be actually pure profit for the company.
Are all weapon orders nonprofitable unless sold in large numbers? I heard many companies even tip in money if big projects are cancelled when it's very near completion, such as the Commanche.
I do not imagine that there will be any "great" profit when the original ROI for this project was based on an initial order of 32 ships.

Now that they are getting only three, of course the cost per ship will be much higher in order to cover the ROI and keep there from being a loss. Sort of like the F-22, originally based on well over a thousand aircraft and then cut back to 187. Each plane costs a lot more just to recoup the investment to make all that high-tech happen.
 

delft

Brigadier
"It is a completely new design and is based on 10 major naval technology/process advancements that the US Navy believes will allow such a vessel to dominate naval surface warfare (as well as anti-air and anti-submarine warfare) for the next fifty years."
How do they imaging they can prevent other countries from improving on this design?
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
"It is a completely new design and is based on 10 major naval technology/process advancements that the US Navy believes will allow such a vessel to dominate naval surface warfare (as well as anti-air and anti-submarine warfare) for the next fifty years."
How do they imaging they can prevent other countries from improving on this design?
They would have to replicate and beat the technology...and they believe it will take belligerent nations 50 years to do so. Time will tell.
 

Spartan95

Junior Member
Are all weapon orders nonprofitable unless sold in large numbers?
There is always the issue of development costs of a new weapons system, be it a ship, aircraft or tank. And the development costs have to be borne by the purchaser. Thus, having a large number of the weapons system sold makes it cheaper as the development costs are spread over a larger number of systems.

Take for example the Eurofighter Typhoon. At its inception, there is a confirmed order of 620 aircraft amongst the countries in the project. Compare this with the JSF/F-35, which has a confirmed order upwards of 3,000 aircraft. At the other end is the Japanese Mitsubishi F-2 fighter where less than 100 will be built.

Which do you think is more profitable for the manufacturer? And which do you think has more value for money for the purchaser?
 

Top